Follow us!

    Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill

    Posted by Pat on 3/06/05

    It's simply a matter of this, v:

    These people go through life saying, "Pain? What pain? I don't feel a thing."

    On 3/05/05, v wrote:
    > ff: If you lived here surounded by my three sets of neighbors, you would coe
    > to the conclussion the p*&#ks are born that way. They love their jobs. And they
    > are who they are because they like it. Did anyone loose sleep after the incident
    > in Bopall India? where between two & three thousand died. Surely no one lost
    > sleep after Chyernoble. The clean up crews were sent to their deaths. Prickyness
    > can be unlearnned that's for sure. But what about those who live for it? They
    > will always be with us.
    > On 3/05/05, ff wrote:
    >> Ozark's Lawyer:
    >> 3/04/05
    >> How does a person become someone that enjoys, and
    >>> profits, from damaging others?
    >>> ff
    >> 3/05/05
    >> Assume it happens. Is this something that is learned behavior or do they
    >> start out that way?
    >> I'd like to know more about what makes these people tick, and I doubt it's
    >> all just dollars. They have to be at least corruptible in the first place.
    >> What forces are at work to cause alignments such as the Gots reference?
    >> Does he have a conscience, does he actually believe he's right, or was he
    >> just so greedy that he took advantage of an opportunity with total disregard
    >> for those adversely affected?
    >> Sorry about the ? marks, but you don't have to have answers to post here.
    >> Like Pat said, seek answers. Offer information when you can.
    >> ff
    >> ff
    >>> On 3/04/05, Pat wrote:
    >>>> Dear ff: Dr. Ann Campbell and others write about this consolidated
    >>> effort
    >>>> of pesticide companies, perfume companies, etc. It has even been
    >>> reported
    >>>> in such literature that the previously mentioned Dr. Gots was paid
    >>> $10,000
    >>>> for one article to discredit MCS. This is why these people must be held
    >>>> accountable. Of course, such a lawsuit would include the companies and
    >>>> not merely the propagandists. It's just like the tobacco lobby days.
    >>>> Now, concerning fatal errors of the proganda machine:
    >>>> 1a] They can mock MCS all that they want. It does not take away the fact
    >>>> that mainstream medicine already recognized Chemical Sensitivity "in
    >>>> case-specific form." And of course, the propaganda machine's objective
    >>>> was to convince the public that chemical-bearing should be allowed to
    >>>> proliferate everywhere, at regulation levels. And to do this, they
    >>> needed
    >>>> to convince the public that no one at any time ever suffers adverse
    >>>> ractivity from any chemical at low-to-moderate levels. So, they made the
    >>>> MCS suffer the scapegoat, calling each one mentally ill. But, they
    >>>> overlooked the fact that the exact same chemicals are avoided by asthma
    >>>> patients who did fail the very physiological ABG test, etc. Thus, on
    >>>> account of the duly diagnosed asthmatics, alone, those chemical-bearing
    >>>> substance must be harnassed.
    >>>> 1b] The propagandists always mention that the AAAAI rejected MCS as a
    >>>> valid diagnosis, in its official position statement. But, they never
    >>>> mentioned that, in the exact same statement, the AAAAI expressly
    >>>> recognized as valid the diagnostic title, "Building-related Illness."
    >>> And
    >>>> of course, that is Sick Building Syndrome + lingering sensitivies. Sick
    >>>> Building Syndrome (SBS) is also regarded as a cousion of MCS, by the way.
    >>>> So, the propaganda machine needed to discredit SBS as much as MCS. The
    >>>> AAAAI thwarted the propagand machine. As well, Fumento wrote a
    >>>> sterotypically sarcastic article, mocking Sick Building Syndrome, as well
    >>>> as an additional one or two, mocking the perfume sensitivity that
    >>> afflicts
    >>>> Sick Building Syndrome sufferers. Milloy did similar. By the way, Milloy
    >>>> expressly advocated bringing back DDT to the market. He called the DDT
    >>>> ban genocidal. That is the character of the propaganda machine.
    >>>> 1c] By the way, the same AAAAI, in the same position statement, also
    >>>> recognized Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome as physiological illness
    >>>> and not a matter of "anxiety attacks". It also recognized
    >>>> Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis, as purely physiological and no psychiatric,
    >>>> also. So, in its attempt to discredit chemical sensitivity, the anti-MCS
    >>>> lobby cited the exact document that recognizes Chemical Sensitivity in
    >>>> "case-specific form".
    >>>> 2] Barrett gave himself away when he wrote "synthetic chemicals",
    >>> claiming
    >>>> that there is no evidence that anyone could be sensitized to the chemical
    >>>> industry's procudt line. Well, if I were a hired propagandist, I would
    >>>> have simply mentioned that not all chemical sensitivity triggers are
    >>>> limited to the chemical industry's product line. Rather, some chemical
    >>>> sensitvity triggers are found in unprocessed nature, as is the case in
    >>>> untreated pine, peruvian lily, willow bark, tulip, and primose. I would
    >>>> have said, "Some people are allergic to pine. But, that does not mean
    >>>> that you cut down all the pine trees in the forests." "Some people are
    >>>> allergic to freshly cut grass. But, that does not mean that you uproot
    >>>> all the grass in the world." "Some workers get sensitized to cotton dust
    >>>> and develop a respiratory illness known as byssinossis. But, that doesn't
    >>>> mean that you bury all the cotton in the world." You simply give these
    >>>> people their allergy-free climates. But, the propaganda machine didn't
    >>> do
    >>>> this. This shows intentional deceit. This indicates that:
    >>>> 1] either they knew that there was a harm factor in the perfume,
    >>>> pesticide, and chemical industry's product line.
    >>>> 2] or they are so greedy and selfish that they want their product line
    >>>> sold and applied everywhere unrestrictedly.
    >>>> 3] or both.
    >>>> You know what, there is something deadly wrong with a society that
    >>> insists
    >>>> on even having its toilet paper scented. This is gluttony. By the way,
    >>>> do you know why certain people are fixated on having scents everywhere
    >>>> they go? Ans: To stimulate their bored adrenal system. In fact, that
    >>> is
    >>>> the exact same reason why certain people frequented horror movies. All
    >>>> that these people have to do to is take up vigorous exercise:
    >>>> return sprints, full court basketball, tennis, trampoline, etc. Simply
    >>>> get a punching bag or some rope to skip. Sprint up hillsides. It has to
    >>>> be something that breaks a sweat and makes a person feel free. That will
    >>>> do it. Scent gluttony is the result of a sedentary society.
    >>>> On 3/04/05, ff wrote:
    >>>>> Pat, Patrick,and all:
    >>>>> "Junk Science" is, of course, not my term, but thank you for your
    >>>>> feedback and additional thoughts.
    >>>>> What comes to mind after reading your references to MCS, and
    >>>>> those "scientists" supported by industry that may conduct fraudulent
    >>>>> science efforts to suppress a medical consensus which would ultimately
    >>>>> place liability on chemical manufacturers, is the Chemical
    >>>>> Manufacturers _________ (If I have the name correct, an association?).
    >>>>> In previous discussions on this board, reference was made to such an
    >>>>> industry organization's plan/recommendations on how to handle the
    >>>>> merging MCS issue. As I recall, it was pretty crude. I'm still
    >>>>> baffled that huge corporations with the resources to do things right,
    >>>>> don't mind screwing up so bad. The screw-ups contradict the portrayed
    >>>>> corporate image, but seem to go relatively un-noticed.
    >>>>> Is it possible that an 'association' comprised of specific corporate
    >>>>> entities is behind a fraudulent science effort (just avoiding the term
    >>>>> junk science)? If so, is there something wrong with such an effort?
    >>>>> ff
    >>>>> On 3/03/05, Pat wrote:
    >>>>>> ff: I should finish this train of thought with you. If want to see
    >>>>>> how an actual expert writes look up a Dr. William Meggs, Vice Chair
    >>>>>> for Clinical Affairs, Division of Toxicology, Department of Emergency
    >>>>>> Medicine, East Carolina University.
    >>>>>> On 3/03/05, ff wrote:
    >>>>>>> Patrick:
    >>>>>>> I'm not sure about the firm and issue you raise, but it seems
    >>>>>>> related to a question I have wondered about. Hypothetically
    >>>>>>> speaking:
    >>>>>>> If, by some sufficient means, it was learned that a group of
    >>>>>>> professionals, doctors for example,profited by "creating"
    >>>>>>> scientific studies and or testimony which they knew were really
    >>>>>>> not scientifically valid, for a profit, and these invalid
    >>>>>>> resources became useful in denying medical claims and essentially
    >>>>>>> diseases, thereby causing the victim to continue to siffer and the
    >>>>>>> condition to worsen, are the creators of the junk science in some
    >>>>>>> way responsible for those affected?
    >>>>>>> I guess, creating junk science for a profit with the intent or
    >>>>>>> knowledge that people could suffer if the junk science and/or
    >>>>>>> testimony were applied/used against those suffereing may be an
    >>>>>>> easier way to express this.
    >>>>>>> I could imagine someone
    >>>>>> approaching a scientist and asking them to
    >>>>>>> develop a study that could be used to support the desired outcome
    >>>>>>> that product X did not cause symtoms 1,2,3..., and, regardless of
    >>>>>>> whether or not X did cause the problem. I guess, starting out
    >>>>>>> with a desired conclusion, and them manipulating a research
    >>>>>>> project to supported the desired conclusion?
    >>>>>>> ff
    >>>>>>> On 3/02/05, JD wrote:
    >>>>>>>> At last! What a relief. Cowgirl Mary is both "speachless"
    >>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>> "speechless"... Double the pleasure!
    >>>>>>>> JD
    >>>>>>>> On 3/01/05, mary wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> See? And Speechless too...
    >>>>>>>>> On 3/01/05, mary wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> Wow...... I'm speachless....
    >>>>>>>>>> Mary
    >>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/05, Patrick wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> Question: Which law firm can find the legal foundation upon
    >>>>>>>>>>> which to file a class action defamation suit against the
    >>>>>>>>>>> duly noted Barrett/Fumento/Milloy/Gots/Stossel and company
    >>>>>>>>>>> propaganda machine? Such a lawsuit would be on behalf of
    >>>>>>>>>>> every Chemical Sensitivity sufferer in the States, including
    >>>>>>>>>>> those Chemical Sensitivity sufferers formally diagnosed with
    >>>>>>>>>>> the following titles:
    >>>>>>>>>>> 1a] Occupational Asthma due to low-molecular weight agents.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 1b] Irritant-induced Asthma.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 2] Chemical Worker's Lung.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 3] External Allergic Alveolitis, aka Hypersensitivity
    >>>>>>>>>>> Pneumonitis "due to chemical sensitization."
    >>>>>>>>>>> 4] Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 5] World Trade Center Cough.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 6] Sick Building Syndrome; a diagnostic title which is
    >>>>>>>>>>> even recognized in the Merck Manual.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 7] Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 8] Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosi.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 9a] Chronic Actinic Dermatitis.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 9b] Occupational Dermatitis.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 10] Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 11] And of course, the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which
    >>>>>>>>>>> is now recognized by name, by the following
    >>>>>>>>>>> licensed & accredited entities, in each one's
    >>>>>>>>>>> Occupatonal & Environmental Medicine Programs:
    >>>>>>>>>>> I] Johns Hopkins.
    >>>>>>>>>>> II] Mt. Sinai Hospital.
    >>>>>>>>>>> III] Yale.
    >>>>>>>>>>> IV] Cambridge Hospital (affiliate of Harvard Med. School.)
    >>>>>>>>>>> V] Northeast Specialty Hospital (also Harvard affiliate.)
    >>>>>>>>>>> VI] University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey.
    >>>>>>>>>>> VII] HealthPartners-Regions Hospital, Minneapolis
    >>>>>>>>>>> (affiliate of the NIOSH Educational Resource Ctr.)
    >>>>>>>>>>> VIII] Central New York Health Occupational Clinical Center.
    >>>>>>>>>>> IX] Marshall University.
    >>>>>>>>>>> X+] a number of board certified and licensed physicians.
    >>>>>>>>>>> Plus, there is the technologically advanced nation of
    >>>>>>>>>>> Germany which coded MCS as "an allergic condition."
    >>>>>>>>>>> And there are also a notable number of licensed entities
    >>>>>>>>>>> which recognize the titles:
    >>>>>>>>>>> "Indoor Air Quality Assessment", "Building-related Illness",
    >>>>>>>>>>> "Sick Building Syndrome", "Environmentally-related
    >>>>>>>>>>> Diseases", "Chronic Chemical Exposure", "Chemically-induced
    >>>>>>>>>>> Illness", "Occupationally-induced Illness", etc.
    >>>>>>>>>>> And this includes the world renown Duke, as well as Iowa
    >>>>>>>>>>> Univ., Boston Medical Ctr., the Univ. of Maryland, and the
    >>>>>>>>>>> Univ. of Pittsburgh (home of the polio vaccine and first
    >>>>>>>>>>> liver transplant.)
    >>>>>>>>>>> Of course, there is the matter of including CFS sufferers
    >>>>>>>>>>> and GWS sufferers. Of course, GWS sufferers have apparently
    >>>>>>>>>>> suffered the most defamation of all the Chemical Sensitivity
    >>>>>>>>>>> sufferers.
    >>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps, and only perhaps, a subset of patients who were
    >>>>>>>>>>> diagnosed with the following 'medically accepted' diagnostic
    >>>>>>>>>>> titles can be included:
    >>>>>>>>>>> 1] Chemically-induced Hepatitis, 2] Chemically-induced
    >>>>>>>>>>> Aplastic Anemia (Bone Marrow Suppression).
    >>>>>>>>>>> The subset, of course, would consist in those who suffered
    >>>>>>>>>>> lingering sensitivity beyond the acute stage.
    >>>>>>>>>>> Such a lawsuit would not be against any licensed practicing
    >>>>>>>>>>> physician, it seems. After all, Barret was never board
    >>>>>>>>>>> certified at anything in his life, and he never praticed
    >>>>>>>>>>> "physical" medicine since his internship days, ending in
    >>>>>>>>>>> 1957. Gots hadn't had a patient in decades, so say the
    >>>>>>>>>>> reports. As well, neither Fumento nor Stossel nor Milloy
    >>>>>>>>>>> have ever been doctors in any medical discipline. And of
    >>>>>>>>>>> course, the only non-licensed (or non-Doctorate-bearing)
    >>>>>>>>>>> person qualified to give sound & valid evidence into the MCS
    >>>>>>>>>>> matter is one who has suffered from the physiological
    >>>>>>>>>>> medical condition for years.
    >>>>>>>>>>> Nor would such a lawsuit be against the pharmaceutical
    >>>>>>>>>>> industry, unless of course, discovery would should that the
    >>>>>>>>>>> pharmaceutical industry funded any of the defamatory
    >>>>>>>>>>> propagandists for producing the defamatory things which they
    >>>>>>>>>>> did. That would be a subsequent filing and joinder.
    >>>>>>>>>>> The Barret/Fumento/Milloy/Stossel & company propaganda
    >>>>>>>>>>> machine employed slight-of-hand semantics & convenient
    >>>>>>>>>>> evidence omission in asserting to the inexperienced public
    >>>>>>>>>>> that Chemical Sensitivity is entirely a process of mental
    >>>>>>>>>>> illness, instead of a physiological process accompanied with
    >>>>>>>>>>> the following physiological medical findings:
    >>>>>>>>>>> 1] Inflammation Scenarios, such as Turbinate Hypertrophy
    >>>>>>>>>>> & Interstitial Inflammation.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 2] Failing the Arterial Blood Gases Test.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 3] Dermatitis scenarios and similar.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 4] Enzyme QPon-1 Deficiency.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 5] Erythema, even internally.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 6] Over Production of Leukotrienes, such as LTD4.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 7] The Production of N-acetyl-benzoquinoneimine in
    >>>>>>>>>>> excess of the Mercapturate which neutralizes it.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 8] Elevations of Alanine Aminotransferase,
    >>>>>>>>>>> aka Serum Glutamic Pyruvic Transaminase.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 9] Hyperactive Conjugations and Deficient Conjugations.
    >>>>>>>>>>> 10] Visible and Measurable Wheals during Skin Testing.
    >>>>>>>>>>> etc., etc., etc.
    >>>>>>>>>>> And then there is the matter P-300 Waves, IgA immunoglobins,
    >>>>>>>>>>> T-Cells, porphyira, and the observable and non-deniable
    >>>>>>>>>>> symptom of Profuse Dry Heaving, as well as that of
    >>>>>>>>>>> Blacking-Out. All in all, the smoking gun was the Fiber
    >>>>>>>>>>> Optic Rhinolaryngoscopic Exam and the medical findings
    >>>>>>> thereof.
    >>>>>>>>>>> The defamatory propaganda resulted in the deprivation of
    >>>>>>>>>>> research funding. Furthermore, how many ignorant persons in
    >>>>>>>>>>> America believed the conclusions of Barret/Stossel/Fumento
    >>>>>>>>>>> and refused to accomodate a chemical sensitivity sufferer in
    >>>>>>>>>>> a time of crisis? How much suffering has that propaganda
    >>>>>>>>>>> machine caused? In as much, all Chemical Sensitivity
    >>>>>>>>>>> sufferers have suffered triply:
    >>>>>>>>>>> 1] at the hands of the illness,
    >>>>>>>>>>> 2] at the hands of a ruthless form of defamation,
    >>>>>>>>>>> 3] at the hands of abandonment for years, due to
    >>>>>>>>>>> little research funding and outrightly lazy physicians
    >>>>>>>>>>> who make lots of money upon one nitch repetitively,
    >>>>>>>>>>> steamlining their practices to a comfortable laziness.
    >>>>>>>>>>> At this point in time, the plaintiff-class of Chemical
    >>>>>>>>>>> Sensitivity Sufferers would have mainstream medicine on it's
    >>>>>>>>>>> side. After all, the AMA, AAAAI, and American Lung
    >>>>>>>>>>> Association all recognize Chemical Sensitivity as it applies
    >>>>>>>>>>> to the ASTHMA symptom. And the AAAAI & AMA recognize it as
    >>>>>>>>>>> it applies to Dermatitis, Aspririn/Salicylate Senstivity,
    >>>>>>>>>>> Ramin Wood Allergy, Acetaminophen Intolerance, Red Cedar
    >>>>>>>>>>> Allergy, Peruvian Lily Allergy, Isocyanate Sensitivity,
    >>>>>>>>>>> Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivty, etc.
    >>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, the AMA, AAAAI, & ALA all advocate the practice of
    >>>>>>>>>>> AVOIDANCE as a necessary part of treatment for the
    >>>>>>>>>>> chemically sensitive, as it applies to asthmatics. Their
    >>>>>>>>>>> official literature enumerates the same chemical-bearing
    >>>>>>>>>>> agents that MCS patients has been avoiding for years, out of
    >>>>>>>>>>> instinct. And remember, Barrett condemned the practice of
    >>>>>>>>>>> AVOIDANCE as detrimental, while Fumento called the practice
    >>>>>>>>>>> "nonsense." Thus is the proof that Barrett is the real
    >>>>>>>>>>> quack, speaking contrary to the AMA & AAAAI. (Fumento is
    >>>>>>>>>>> simply a pushy-shovey brat who needs to be put his place, as
    >>>>>>>>>>> all bully-brats picking on helpless people need to be.)
    >>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, comdemning the practice of AVOIDANCE, while
    >>>>>>>>>>> asserting that Chemical Sensitivity patients must be placed
    >>>>>>>>>>> in direct encounter with the triggers that torment them, is
    >>>>>>>>>>> the act of inciting a crime known in some jurisdictions as
    >>>>>>>>>>> TOXIC BATTERY. Thus, Fumento and Barret have publicly
    >>>>>>>>>>> advocated the committing of crimes.
    >>>>>>>>>>> Proof that the AMA, AAAI, & ALA recognize Chemical
    >>>>>>>>>>> Sensitivity, at least as it applies to the ASTHMA symptom,
    >>>>>>>>>>> can be found at the following mainstream medical sites:
    >>>>>>>>>>> AMA Report 4 of the Council of Scientific Affairs (A-98),
    >>>>>>>>>>> found at
    >>>>>>>>>>> The other ones are found at:
    >>>>>>>>>>> http://bdapps/ama-assn/org/aps/asthma/manage.htm
    >>>>>>>> asthmatriggersandmgmt.stm
    >>>>>>>> 34706&ct=67442
    >>>>>>>>>>> The propaganda mahcine fraudulently went about, claiming
    >>>>>>>>>>> that the AMA & AAAAI condemned MCS as non-existent. This is
    >>>>>>>>>>> a lie. The AMA & AAAAI merely declined to recognize the
    >>>>>>>>>>> specific title, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, as a
    >>>>>>>>>>> case-specific diagnostic title of its own medical code.
    >>>>>>>>>>> This is because MCS is too vague and non-case-specific of a
    >>>>>>>>>>> name. The AMA & AAAAI merely said that more research was
    >>>>>>>>>>> needed to be done, in order them to encapsulate MCS into a
    >>>>>>>>>>> meticulously defined and analysed "case definition". And
    >>>>>>>>>>> though they did not recognize Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
    >>>>>>>>>>> by name, they still recognized the phenomenon of Sensitivity
    >>>>>>>>>>> of Chemicals.
    >>>>>>>>>>> Mainstreams Medical Science has long since recognized the
    >>>>>>>>>>> process of "sensitization." And it has long since
    >>>>>>>>>>> recognized the phenomenon of hypersensitivity to
    >>>>>>>>>>> chemical-bearing agents when encountered by susceptible
    >>>>>>>>>>> persons, at commonly encounter levels (at low to moderate
    >>>>>>>>>>> levels).
    >>>>>>>>>>> The MCS debate has been game of semantics. The anti-MCS
    >>>>>>>>>>> lobby went beyond the sound barriers of obsecenity. All
    >>>>>>>>>>> contributing members must be held accountable.

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.